The Chicago Tribune reports on true conservative churches — in other words, churches that reject trees, Santa, carols, consumer merchandise swapping, and other unbiblical icons of the ancient seasonal holiday currently known as Christmas.
I respect these churches’ efforts to remain focused on the true faith, free from material and spiritual distractions.
At Focus on the Family, however, moral relativists dismiss the Bible. They rationalize that it’s OK to borrow non-Christian idols and associate them with Christ’s symbolic day of birth because all these particular idolatries didn’t exist when the Bible was written:
Alex McFarland, director of Youth Apologetics for Focus on the Family, an evangelical broadcast ministry headquartered in Colorado Springs, Colo., said he is mindful of a Christian’s right to follow his or her faith as they feel guided.
But he said some objections to customs were misplaced. Opposition to Christmas trees, for example, is based on a misreading of the Bible’s book of Jeremiah, 10:2-4, he said. The King James Version reads: “Thus saith the Lord, Learn not the way of the heathen…. For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe. They deck it with silver and with gold…. “
“Jeremiah was writing several hundred years before the birth of Christ. It could not have referred to a Christmas tree,” McFarland said.
Hmmm…. Something’s OK simply because it didn’t exist in Biblical times? Because the writers couldn’t have known what they were talking about? That’s hardly the position of an inerrantist. It sounds like some liberal relativists’ rationalization for a gay-affirmative Bible.
Focus admits that the “holiday season” predates Christianity and then rationalizes away a Biblical absolute.
What could be next? Focus admitting that evolution trumps the Bible’s various creation stories? Or would that new moral absolute prove too unpopular to Focus’ fund-raising department?
I just love “the Trib” as locals call it! Focus, et al, are more creations of the culture, or at least one version of it, than they are creations of a theological philosophy.
There seems to be a recurring theme of selectivity of biblical interpretations, e.g., homosexuality is a grave sin, because it says so in the Bible, but adultery, bearing false witness, neglecting to honor one’s parents, etc. are somehow more forgiveable.
IMHO, it’s this selectivity in interpretation of scripture that discredits any claim to biblical inerrancy or claim of biblical truths.
Actually Focus was right on this one though they phrased their response incorrectly.
The real answer was that the Jeremiah quotation was not in reference to Christmas Trees because the modern Christmas Tree traditions are thought to date to, of all people, Martin Luther:
“Legend has it that Martin Luther began the tradition of decorating trees to celebrate Christmas. One crisp Christmas Eve, about the year 1500, he was walking through snow-covered woods and was struck by the beauty of a group of small evergreens. Their branches, dusted with snow, shimmered in the moonlight. When he got home, he set up a little fir tree indoors so he could share this story with his children. He decorated it with candles, which he lighted in honor of Christ’s birth.”
https://www.christmas-tree.com/where.html
So, in this instance, it seems that the Christmas Tree, though one would suppose it to be of pagan origin as is the Easter Bunny, Halloween, and many other traditions, is actually an original Christian tradition.
The fact that other customs may have included trees does not necessarily tie in the Christmas Tree.
Um. I don’t know where Christmas-Tree.com got the idea that Martin Luther thought up the Christmas Tree. I’ve scene references to the tree that date to 7th Century and the History Channel in it’s exhaustive look at the history of Christmas says that the Christmas Tree was regarded as a pagan symbol as recently as the first national evangelical movement in the 1840s. For more: https://www.historychannel.com/exhibits/holidays/christmas/trees.html
Timothy,
I am skeptical of the legend, but let’s assume it’s true.
A tradition that began with Luther is not, in my opinion, an “original” Christian tradition or even an early one. A second-millennium Christian may have started or adapted certain traditions, but the tree, Santa, et al, have no symbolic connection to Christ’s birth and no basis in the Bible. As independent symbols of the season, they may be harmless, but as symbols of Christianity they are (imo) undeniable and alarming corruptions of the faith.
When the Jews following Moses created the golden calf, I have little doubt that some of them considered the calf compatible with the Jewish faith. But God (according to the absolutists) punished them just the same.
Similarly, the builders of the Tower of Babel no doubt had honorable intentions. But the tower, too, is viewed in hindsight as an idol.
It is common for Biblical literalists and absolutists to pick and choose among “good idols” and “bad idols”; to rally behind “good” idols such as the flag, the tree or the eagle; and to selectively discard history, context and intent underlying “bad” idols such as the peace sign, the rainbow, the Earth flag, or the pentagram.
I reject that game. An idol is an idol — regardless of what religious-right relativists may say.
It’s a free country; Americans are free to adopt idols as icons of their spirituality or their family life, if they wish. I simply ask that they be honest about their mix-n-match faith and their deviation from plain Biblical teaching.
Mike
“A tradition that began with Luther is not, in my opinion, an “original” Christian tradition”
To clarify, if the Luther tradition is accurate, then the Christmas Tree is original to Christianity in the sense that the origins of the tradition are Christian rather than pagan (not original in the sense that it dates to the birth of Christianity).
While I understand where you’re going on the idea of the flag or the tree being an idol, I think that your definition of “idol” is a little broad, or at least would appear to be so to the writers of the Jewish Law and histories.
I think, though I’m open to correction, that for something to be an idol, there must be some aspect of worship or veneration. For example, without offense to anyone’s faith, a statue that was representative of a deity (or to protestant minds) a saint could qualify as an idol because it is the recipient (or token thereof) of prayer or praise.
Further, though no one prays to a flag, because it is venerated and is representative of a hallowed concept (country, patriotism) it could arguably be an idol.
However, as best I can tell, the Christmas Tree does not receive prayer, praise, or veneration of any sort (other than “ooooh, that’s pretty”). So I’m not sure it can qualify as an idol.
The fact that something similar may have at some point been worshiped is stretching it way too far. We would have to include cats, the earth, thunder, portraits, and just about everything else that has ever existed. I don’t think that is a reasonable interpretation of Jeremiah, or any other prohibitions of idolatry.
An additional objection could come in the form of traditions with pagan association. Some conservative Christians object to Halloween because the traditions, though they are not at this time in honor of pagan gods, have origins in pagan beliefs. This is not so cut and dried that absolutist could not have absolute positions on either side. But this is not the case with the Christmas Tree, as best I can find.
Also, it isn’t relevant to the statement that Focus made which dealt with idolatry.
Pastor Richard Bucher of the Evangelical Trinity Lutheran Church in Clinton, MA disagrees with the Luther legend. His research suggests Adam and Eve morality plays.
https://users.rcn.com/tlclcms/chrtree.htm
While his stuff looks researched at first glance, I imagine there are another dozen or so theories floating about.
We may never truly know. But it remains irelevant to my underlying point which is that the Christmas Tree does not qualify as an idol.
So, in this instance, it seems that the Christmas Tree, it is of pagan German tradition, long predating their conversion to christianity. It is the same pagan tradition of the Gauls of the yule log. The “christmas” fest is the same festival as the predecessor 12 day fest of the sun-god Mithras following the winter solstice. You might want to do an investigation of ancient religions. In more than a few of them the sun god was also put to death and then resurrected in the spring. Do you sense a pattern?
NB: the Saturnalia was an approximately 7 days festival that was previous to the solsist fest that was subsequently labled christmas.
BTW, the page that you linked to showed an example that I had earlier mentioned regarding the unreliability of the Internet. You apparently want to make it appear to claim that interior decorated brush is a christian tradition. It isn’t–it long predates and is orthogonal to a christian tradition.
Actually, Luther was a monk in 1500. He only became a husband and father in the 1520’s. The origins of the Christmas tree are shrouded in mystery. In the English speaking world it seems to have appeared with Queen Victoria’s German husband Prince Albert, namesake of the famous piercing.
In Paganism today, one popular view is that the tree represents Yggdrasil, the great World Tree, upon which we live. And the tree upon which Father Odin sacrificed himself to himself: became reconciled with his own nature. Something we all go through, or at least should go through.
That the lights and symbols represent the way in which we have once again come to the Mystical Birth of the Sun. The Sun is reborn, the World will renew. From now until Oimel, Candlemas in Christian terms, we rejoice in the revival of the light. And in the coming of longer daylight, which is very pronounced at Northern latitudes. This is the time of the quiet World, the one that is not quite ready to be reborn.
The tree reminds of Father Odin and Mother Freja who pour forth themselves into the world. As Thor, for Pagans do not really see Gods as totaly distinct beings, who is a form of Odin, rides through the sky in his sleigh pulled by goats bringing gifts to all. Given the high snows, he must enter homes through the chimneys as the doors are buried. No one in their right mind would let reindeer pull a sleigh, given the reindeers’ flighty and panicky nature.
We may ask along with Gnaeus Celsus who lived 1700 years ago, if you take away the Pagan elements from Christianity, what is left?
Looking at the topic here, I decided to go see what contemporary Pagans have to say about the subject. I went to WitchesVoice:
https://www.witchvox.com/
which seemed to me a good source for thoughts on the Pagan origins of Christmas. Although, when I looked at contemporary Christian thoughts on Gay people Timothy got quite upset with me and decided not to meet for coffee. Anway, here is what I found.
This is a very good one: We Want Our Holidays Back:
https://www.witchvox.com/va/dt_va.html?a=usga&c=holidays&id=10378
Then others:
https://www.witchvox.com/va/dt_va.html?a=usca&c=holidays&id=10390
https://www.witchvox.com/va/dt_va.html?a=usut&c=words&id=10315
https://www.witchvox.com/va/dt_va.html?a=usfl&c=holidays&id=10381
https://www.witchvox.com/va/dt_va.html?a=usut&c=words&id=10315
https://www.witchvox.com/va/dt_va.html?a=uswv&c=words&id=10365
https://www.witchvox.com/va/dt_va.html?a=ussc&c=holidays&id=10313
https://www.witchvox.com/wren/wn_detail.html?id=14577
https://www.witchvox.com/wren/wn_detail.html?id=14574
https://www.witchvox.com/wren/wn_detail.html?id=14573
https://www.witchvox.com/wren/wn_detail.html?id=14571
https://www.witchvox.com/wren/wn_detail.html?id=14569
https://www.witchvox.com/wren/wn_detail.html?id=14567
https://www.witchvox.com/wren/wn_detail.html?id=14566
https://www.witchvox.com/wren/wn_detail.html?id=14564
https://onmilwaukee.com/seasonal/holidays/articles/yule.html?7933
https://www.witchvox.com/music/bardic/dt_bc.html?id=204
https://www.witchvox.com/music/bardic/dt_bc.html?id=203
Keep in mind, Paganism is an Ancient Disorganized Religion.
This reminds me of my idea for a custom sweatshirt – a big picture of Saturn (the anthromorphic myth-entity, not the planet or the car) and underneath, in festive holiday script,
HE’S THE REASON FOR THE SEASON.
I expect three possible reactions: blank incomprehension, frothing outrage, and cheerful
recognition.
My husband and I (with our eight-year-old son) had a Solstice dinner last night, followed by decorating our Christmas tree. Next week, we’ll start Hanukkah. We are large, we contain many things.
“…Timothy got quite upset with me and decided not to meet for coffee”
Careful now, Dale. You seem to be having a memory lapse (or actually a truth lapse).
I said you were certainly welcome to join Regan, myself, and anyone else in SoCal when we do eventually meet for coffee, as long as you weren’t going to turn coffee into a chance to attack the religous beliefs of those there (cuz only a fool would actually invite someone to come attack them).
But if you think I “decided not to meet for coffee”, I guess that means that you decided that you are not capable of being civil. I’m sorry to hear it.
Should you change your mind and decide that you actually can function in a social setting without hostility, then by all means, please join us.
Wow. Lots of tree traditions out there.
I think the point I was making is that the Christmas Tree, though similar in some ways to many of those traditions, cannot be traced directly to them (from what I’ve seen).
Several of you have made the very good point that many (if not most) of Christian traditions and symbols long predate Christianity. That is absolutely true. The Church has a long history of incorporating cultures by adopting their religious ceremonies and renaming them.
This is especially true this time of year. It takes a real contortion of logic to believe that the person Jesus was born in December, lived 33 years and six months, and died in March or April. Good thing there was a Solstice night to adopt.
However, considering that the period in which the Christmas Tree seems to have reared it’s head (sometime between 1500 and 1700) was a time of great debate over the purity of doctrine and considering that the Tree seems to have been founded in the protestant traditions, it seems to me to be highly unlikely that it was a direct adoption of the trappings of another religion. That doesn’t sound at all like the German Christians of that period.
It’s an interesting subject and of course I may be wrong.
But to veer way back over to the subject at hand, I still don’t think the Christmas Tree qualifies as an idol.
On the issue of christmas trees, from religioustolerance.org:
https://www.religioustolerance.org/xmas_tree.htm
Re: I still don’t think the Christmas Tree qualifies as an idol.
Well then I suppose I should refrain from placing brighly-wrapped gift offerings at its feet. 😉
This “origins of the Christmas Tree” argument is a red herring don’t you think? Trees have no doubt been associated with many traditions and celebrations throughout history, pagan and otherwise. For at least the last couple of centuries and certainly today, a type of tree, decorated in certain ways, is part of most Christmas celebrations. If one loves the tree more than God, then it’s an idol. If not, then enjoy the season. These are traditions, not commands or even doctrines. What’s the point?
David
Jim Burroway said:
Well then I suppose I should refrain from placing brighly-wrapped gift offerings at its feet. 😉
If those gifts are addressed to the tree, then just sit tight. Those men in white coats are from Santa’s bakery – they want to help you…
David
This “origins of the Christmas Tree” argument is a red herring don’t you think?
Somewhat. I would consider it a diversion from the topic of the post.
The christmas tree was largely an extension of a pagan tradition that didn’t begin with the pagan Germans. But the reason that the Tannenbaum was selected was because its leaves (the needles) was because they remained green during and after the winter Solstice fest. Deciduous trees had long since lost their leaves.